5th EHP Round: European Democracy

The majority of the participants are of the opinion that the principle of unanimity should be
in the Council of the EU should be abolished and replaced by a qualified majority.
should be replaced. On a scale of 0 (no way) to 10 (yes, absolutely), the House parliamentarians selected an average value of 7.4. The most important argument in favor of abolishing the unanimity principle is, in the opinion of the
participants is the increased ability to act that this can create. Without the need for unanimity, decisions can be made more quickly - an advantage, especially in times of crisis. The abolition of the veto creates confidence in the EU's ability to act. The most important counterargument cited was the risk of power imbalances between large and small states. Smaller EU member states could feel left out. Accordingly, the unanimity principle safeguards national sovereignty and independence.

On the question of whether a representative citizens' council should be established as an advisory body for the
EU institutions, the public opinion is multifaceted and divided.
and divided. The average score is 5.6, indicating only slight support for such a body. It is interesting to note that the voting results are widely spread. Opinions are therefore divided on this question. In terms of content, most participants are in favor of a representative citizens' council creating proximity and strengthening trust in European democracy. The argument most frequently put forward by both the hesitant and the enthusiastic questioned the criteria for such a measure.

For example, participants argued that the selection process should be carefully defined and that not all issues should be presented to the citizens' committee. Other aspects raised many questions. Should the appointees be trained? How can they be supported? Is such a committee socially inclusive enough or another set of academics*? Participants also stressed the need to protect the
councils should be protected from outside influence and not become the subject of lobbying.

A clear picture of sentiment emerges in the third question. On average
the participants selected a value of 7.5 and thus cast a clear vote for the right of
for the right of initiative in the European Parliament. More than half of all
voting results are in the upper voting range between 8 and 10.
The argument that the supporters of the right of initiative put forward first was the strengthening of democracy through this measure. By granting the European Parliament the right of initiative, its role in the power structure of the EU is substantially strengthened. This has the direct consequence, according to the HouseParliament participants, of giving European decisions greater legitimacy. Moreover, the "royal right" of a people's representation carries a strong symbolism. Critics of the right of initiative for the European Parliament point to the more difficult path to legislation. They argue that duplication of powers would not only lengthen procedures, but also weaken the influence of the EU Commission. They emphasize that the distribution of power between the institutions is crucial and see a well-functioning process in the current set-up.